boxes
-
Posts
932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by boxes
-
-
Personally the way I see it, the only traits worth the most value in determining how much a player can contribute to a team is their skill in both infantry combat and vehicle combat. If somebody has mastered at least one of the two, chances are likely that they have strong game sense and situational awareness, both of which factor much into ones ability to infiltrate a base. And somebody mentioned before that strong infiltrators are often the best base defenders, as they know all possible entry points and hiding spots, and know the most optimal way to utilize available mines on certain maps.
Unfortunately, support has a very small skill cap. You basically hold down mouse 1, mash WASD randomly, and pray you don’t get sniped. But of course, one can still improve their game sense by playing support, such as taking note of common sniper spots, noticing tracer rounds, and staying out of splash range. But these should be fundamental to players that have mastered combat. The best supports are the ones who know how to stay alive and don’t get bored doing their job.
-
7
-
-
I have been receiving numerous reports lately regarding a number of issues concerning the PUGs. Normally I wouldn’t write something like this, but I’m beginning to see these issues starting to have an impact on these weekly events, given how we are once again having difficulty finding the same level of participation we had a month ago. I’ve reached out to a number of players, particularly those that I considered regular players but don’t show up as often anymore, and I asked for their feedback regarding the current state of the PUGs and what we need to improve on.
Firstly, the conduct that we’ve been seeing in the PUGs has been very poor. It has gotten to the point where the attitudes of certain players are beginning to drive away others, and I admit I haven’t been enforcing the behavior rules at all. From what I observe and what players have told me, is that the amount of negativity that comes from one player can be very contagious, and has the capacity to ruin the experience for the rest of the team. Therefore starting now, I wish to see a friendlier and more positive environment in the PUGs. I understand that losing can be frustrating, but the team chat is not the place where you vent and make a fuss. I ask all participants to hold themselves responsible for their actions and exercise control over their emotions. Starting now, all player conduct will be strictly moderated, and any sign of toxicity will be promptly dealt with at our own discretion.
Another issue is team balance. This one is more for the other moderators. Although there hasn’t been a stomp recently, I ask of the mod team to please respect what players have to say in regards to concerns of team balance and abandon any form of bias when forming teams or when rebalancing. It should go without saying that equal teams lead to more rewarding experiences for all players, and that is the goal we strive to achieve. In the long run I do plan on making a more robust system when it comes to picking teams.
If you’ve ever joined a PUG in the past, you should know by now that getting volunteers for commanders almost never happens, primarily because of the responsibility held to lead your team in tandem with having to deal with people that don’t listen to you or straight up reject your ideas, and requiring the vigor to speak over 15 other people in your team. I am considering that voice chat will only be restricted to the commander, and leave it for the commander to decide 3-5 other players in their team to be allowed to use voice chat. All other players will interact the same way as public games, via q-spots and text chat. This should clear comms much more, and at the same time it won’t sacrifice too much merit that comes from unrestricted voice chat. We will experiment with this in the following PUG. As for the players that don’t listen, that will be a bit more difficult to manage. Sometimes players have their game volumes too high and can’t hear others properly, or don’t understand English very well. Depending on how blatant it is, the ‘listen to commander’ rule will be enforced more strictly as well, but we first need to understand the circumstances to see whether or not action is necessary.
It is my hope that these changes will make the PUGs a more engaging and less-chaotic experience.
-
6
-
-
Sunday PUGs will now be postponed once again due to low player turnout
-
3 hours ago, vlatkozelka said:
MRLS were designed to work with a locked turret
Not in RenX. The maps were not designed in mind with MRLS being able to shoot over massive obstacles. For example it's the same exact reason why Nod isn't able to shell the ref anymore from the middle of the field on Lakeside. GDI can't properly respond to it since it's so far away in the backlines, just like how Nod can't respond to MRLS shooting over mountains behind a wall of tanks. Lakeside wasn't designed around artillerys having an arc to their projectiles. But for the MRLS, it would require literally every single map to be revised in some way or form. It is simply much more efficient re-evaluating the lock mechanic.
-
1
-
-
@roweboat Straightforward solutions can resolve this, and can work in place of the mine system we have right now. Interior turrets, laser walls, alarms, pre-set mines and other static defense ideas all are similar in that none requires player interaction as a pre-requisite in setting up a layer of defenses. We can go with one of these ideas, replace the mine count at the bottom with (alarms active: X, Lasers offline: X, Turrets offline: X, etc.). Implement any one of these systems and drop proxy mines completely or re-appropriate them, and I personally think we have something ready to replace the system we have now. What we would need to do next is adjust whatever system we choose so that infiltration remains one of the most exciting things to do, while defending won't feel too easy or difficult.
Mines I feel are simple enough, at least for the doors. 3 mines per door will always do its job in any situation, and players should be given visual indicators along with the fact that three mines are the maximum amount they are allowed to carry. Player creativity towards mine usage comes later, which is worth mentioning that it is a merit that a static base defense system won't have. It gives base defenders more responsibility (not necessary a bad thing), and allows them to set up their line of defense the way they like it the most for each specific map.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, ........... said:
The whole discussion seems to me a little joke. I just imagine an illustrious circle talking about the procedure before to make others feel that their voices would be heard. The "discussion" about mines and also about credit is as old as the game, but has learned from it you do not.
What is really laying mines? If it is not in the eye of the viewer, it is important that the buildings are protected by mines.Celling Turrets are nice too.
You will never be able to do all things right, but the way it was started, that is old hat.The point of this thread is to reach a consensus on what mining should be, so we can settle this issue once and for all. Given what I wrote I didn't make it clear, but all suggestions are welcome and open for discussion.
Ceilling turrets is another thing that can be fleshed out more. If we're talking about what we had on HeXMouontain, but without proxy mines, infiltrating will either be impossible or completely stealthy depending on the structure. I shared my concerns about that in my reply to Agent.
-
3 minutes ago, TheOlsenTwins said:
I really like where this thread is going - but maybe it can be a bit simpler. (and more like the current system)
Couldnt we just have dedicated mine zones(where the current "desired mining places" are), where shapes of mines are shown at the beginning, and where you can make mines appear by using your (Advanced) Repair Gun on it. (kind of like the places where you could build GTs on FPI)Depending on the idea either free or only usable with hottie/tech. (if you add some text like "use your repair gun to build defensive mines" it might also be understandable for newbies straigtaway.)
Also of course hottie/tech no longer have other mines to use. (or only 2 like the AT guys) - and a per building limit should apply - but if you get a clear visual clue about this and where possible mining places are it should be understandable for everyone...
This could be a good first step, smiply starting with some visual mechanic that lets players know where mines should be placed, like silhouetts appearing behind doors when you are currently holding proxy mines. We can expect to see less 'incorrect' mines this way, but later we will still need to address the issue of overmining.
-
9 hours ago, limsup said:
I do not wish to engage in any debates here regarding the broader scope of things, I would only have a single, very specific, sincere question without any presumption:
Would that be desirable?
I know it is very well established, that a single infiltrator - if left unchecked - can single handedly destroy a structure, I would merely prefer to hear pro and contra reasons on this matter...
As @roweboat mentioned, discussion of infiltration balance is something for another thread. As it currently stands, infiltration has not been a priority balance issue, and I wish to see a system that affects it as little as possible in our current position.
34 minutes ago, Eagle XI said:This will come as even more complicated to the new player. You will transmit an message to the player why that mine disappeared into thin air and he's going to get baffled: ok, but whyyyyyy soooo ?
So, you thought there are not enough mines in the base, they are only in the buildings, entire base should be blanketed with mines. And what point there will be to sneaking then ? Making building mines exempt from the global limit doesnt bring any improvement to the current system.
Mines inside buildings shouldnt be allowed at all. I would rather have those laser fences, automated or deployable sentry guns with limited ammo pool, really any solution else than this.
Maybe, maybe not, we will never know without playtesting. But what I do know is that this is very reminicisent of the good aspects of the system we have now, in that base defense is a player responsibility, and there is a specific way to determine an infilitration taking place (mine count), with the only way to check is by manually entering a building and investigating. It's something that current players can recognize right away, while at the same time giving babysteps for a new player to understand it.
The mine won't disappear in thin air. They simply won't be allowed to enter the plant animation, and there will be a HUD notification and audio telling them that if they try, like the vertical clearance we have right now for commander powers.
Building mines are the global limit. You cannot plant more than the limit because there simply won't be any more after you plant the last mine. Proxy mines are limited to two per player like AT mines, and I don't expect to see this to be an issue since they take damage from weapons. There's no indication of whether or not your proxy mines are disarmed.
Responded to Agent in regards to turrets, and roweboat with the laser walls. I can still see some further significant gameplay detriments if we implement the laser wall, but before I mention them I need to be more clear on the idea as a whole. I simply don't think it was fleshed out enough in that thread from before.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, roweboat said:
I like the idea of lowering the harvester payload, but I don't think the tickrate should be increased.
I'm with those who say "you gotta fight to earn your money, son!".
The issue of that will be that it will further strengthern Nod's early game since it will take longer for GDI to get tanks and repairs out. At the moment, GDI's base on small maps could have 4 light tanks rolling in their base before they get one med out, assuming both teams lose their first harvester. And if donation time is open by then, early flame tanks will only make it harder for GDI to push out of their base, even if they donated for meds.
The core reason for the higher tickrate is that GDI's passive income to 800 is faster than what it is now. By the time Nod gets their tanks rolling out in the field, GDI should have meds available.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Akbaro said:
Some games I feel like just leaving when all the stuff is gone and playing something else cos tier 1 infantry and APCs isnt fun but increasing the dead tick rate would make destroying refs pretty worthless. Just a minor setback.
1.5 might be more appropriate, but perhaps something else can be done to generate income rather than increasing tickrate. I've heard an idea that after the refinery dies, players then become responsible for harvesting tiberium themselves via some item allows them to harvest tiberium? And they drop off this item at a certain spot in the base where a chinook comes and picks it up at specific time intervals and this becomes an alternative harvy dump for teams without refs? Something like that
40 minutes ago, Kaunas said:I think its fair to lower the harvs payload, but still iffy on credit tickrate. Its not that difficult to accumilate passive credits (even for me who suicides his 1k units every 5minutes)
Since most maps play as a campfest, harv must be stopped, so on the camped team it serves no purpouse, when the camp..e'?' Team gets all harv drops, helping them accumilate even more income. This would balance out the playing field quite well IMO.
The exact numbers of the tickrate should be tested extensively, to the point where the exact credit income over a period of time is as close as possible to what we have now. Spamming 1K infantry will definitely be a problem otherwise.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, LavaDr4gon said:
Would any infantry be able to purchase the mines or just Tech/Hotty? If any infantry can mine then an added benefit would be that you no longer need 1 advance engineer to keep mining the base after losing hon/bar.
Also would there be a repercussion of not being able to place extra mines in a building after losing a building? Whenever a building is destroyed we would often disarm the mines so we can place the extra mines in the remaining building.
Yes, any infantry can purchase mines
Added!
4 hours ago, roweboat said:If doors and ramps are typically the only thing that should "mined", why not make this defense system something stationary or static within or around the building. (such as the laser fences or gun turrets)
I was really into that idea at first too (laser fences), but an issue somebody brought up is that it eliminates any interesting dynamics that players can utilize with mines, such as putting 2 in front of the ref and 4 in the back door. In this way for example, defenders when they see 4 mines down, have a good sense as to what building is in trouble.
Maybe ramps don't need to be included in this system, but it may cause some gameplay issues with having SBH freely roam the WF roof.
4 hours ago, Agent said:I still absolutely hate the concept of mining a building at all, where you put explosives inside of your own buildings to ensure nobody gets in. I've said plenty on mines in previous mine-related discussions, but I'd really like to see some alternative to explosives for the purpose of building defense.
Currently my favorite idea is to just add a simple interior turret that can both hurt players and one-shot-disarm C4. The turret's never destroyed unless the building's destroyed, but would be disabled at 0% health so that the turret can be repaired later on. It's far more intuitive than planting C4 in your own buildings, and avoids arbitrary pre-defined mining zones. This also removes any cost associated with repairing the turret, and reduces the significance of multiple points of entry into buildings (i.e: thinking HoN vs Barracks, where on some levels the Barracks can be easier to defend than the HoN; similar applies to Airstrip vs WF).
In addition to that, I'm still a strong proponent of removing proximity C4 from hotwires / technicians completely, and converting them into a purchasable item (same slot as a beacon or airstrike), so that infiltrators can mine enemy buildings after entry or otherwise. Removing the mine limit is a huge benefit of removing team responsibility from proximity mines.
If we were to go the route of re-purposing proximity mines, it might also make sense to forbid proximity mines from being within a short (maybe 3 meter or so) distance of friendly buildings. Otherwise, any player who still doesn't put mines at a door or near a door is effectively team hampering by not helping prevent infiltration.
At a logical perspective, I understand where you're coming from, mining doesn't make any sense per se, but that can also be applied to many other things in the game, like why orcas/apaches are free to fly undamaged while slamming itself on the ground, or why a buggy can surf 6 engineers on top repairing each other at the same time. It doesn't make sense, but these and mining are not too bizarre to the point where it gets in the way of somebody's experience.
The issue with interior turrets is that it affects the balance of infiltration; as we saw in HexMountain. It can be extremely difficult to pull off, especially with proxy mines, but at the same time, the buildings have so many hiding spots where players can avoid line of sight from the turrets. HON in particular would need 5 turrets to completely cover all angles inside the building. How would a solo infiltrator get around to disabling all these turrets? If we were to have a limit on these turrets per building, how would players know, similarly to the way we do right now via drop in mine count, that somebody is inside a building but has bypassed the turret defenses? How would players know that something is amiss like the system we have at the moment?
Whatever happens to proxy mines is freely up for debate. I wouldn't mind if they were purchasable either way, as long as there is a personal limit to them so they don't get out of hand when a team averages 2k+ credits per player.
If somebody doesn't put them at doors, when there is a clear indication that that is where mines are intended to go, and after seeing their teammates put them in front of doors beforehand, perhaps we could make it so all teammates can remove mines, and upon disarming, a refund would be granted. If somebody is hellbent on putting mines in place where their teammates don't agree on, I would believe a team hamperer is present, and this player would be no different from somebody pushing teammates off the plateau on walls.
-
3 minutes ago, BubbleTea said:
Just one thing noteworthy, it would be harder for one person to mine, depending on the cost.
Added!
Yep it will likely happen. I was thinking 25 credits per mine, and one player will definitely run out of credits before the donation time begins.
-
1
-
-
Part 2 of 4 of post-pug discussions
--
The Existing Problems:
It should be well known by now given the drama we find in-game and the re-occuring topics we see over and over here on the forums. We've seen many ideas thrown around, such as stricly personal mine limits, laser fences, purchasable mines, and so on. The current mining system is the pinnacle of a good idea, but poor execution. Given that its mostly inherent from Westwood, the dev team is not responsible for its current design, but it is still long overdue to try new things to fix this flawed system. Too many players have fallen victim to accusations of team-hampering, vote-kicks, mine-bans (which shouldn't even be a thing), and spews of hatred over mining and failing to do it 'correctly'. These players are often unaware that they are harming the team or thinking that they are helping out, when in reality they are driving their teammates insane. If we are looking to bring this game to new audiences, it is imperative that this must be addressed in some way (no, an official tutorial will not work. When was the last time you played/watched a tutorial all the way through in a new game, and had fun doing it? And even if we did, there's too many nuances of mining to be properly addressed in a timely manner).
In games, many player interactions with objects should come across to be extremely obvious. If you hold a gun or drive a tank, you shoot enemy players with it. If you have a repair gun, you shoot it at friendlies. So, if we hold mines, we should put them at places to deter or kill enemies entering an area. Unfortunately, that is extremely vague in this game, which can range from base entrances, bunkers in the field, or areas in infantry paths. Literally nothing in the game communicates to the player that proximity mines rely on a team-based limit, nor does anything explain what happens if players mine over the limit, or why they should care. Nothing tells a player how crucial it is to mine 3 mines per door, why they should or should not mine building ramps, and so on. And if you are reading this and you have no idea as to how mines work, my advice is to simply not use them. The learning curve is too big, and it's not worth the trouble getting into it if you are familiarizinig yourself with other game mechanics.
Back to the point, the problems currently are:
- Failure to communicate a team mine limit and overmining plus the effects of it
- What it means when mines aren't at the max limit
- Default item of Techs/Hotties, implying to the player that 'this is mine, and I get to use them however I like".
- No telling what the radius of detonation for the mines are (players put them in places where enemies can bypass them)
- No indication of the most optimal mine locations
But what the system gets right:
- The feeling of insecurity and danger from an incomplete mine count
- Being the one in your team to notice it firsthand, and giving off the feeling that 'you saved the team'
- Ability to 'trick' infiltrators by placing mines in uncommon patterns or potential locations
--
What to change:
Implement a new type of mine specifically for buildings. Around each door, there should be a transparent cabinet with 3 visible slots, each containing building mines, and each mine costs XX credits. Players purchase and access these mines by holding down E. Players can see the mines missing by looking at the cabinet (or around the door itself), and can use them whenever possible. These are available at the start of the game. Rename 'Mines' at the bottom to 'Building mines' or 'Team mines'.
Properties of building mines:
- New model/color
- Same damage/health values and disarm/repair logic as current proxy mines
- Part of the team limit
- Must only be placed when a player is standing on its respective building mesh. For example, if a player were to place down HON specific mines on the ground outside of the building, the player will not be allowed to plant. Players will be notified through audio and overview text.
- If the player is too far away from the building they bought mines from, the building mines will be confiscated and placed back into the cabinet where they came from, and the player will be refunded. Players will be notified through audio and overview text
- As soon as a building mine is disarmed, it will go back to the nearest cabinet, wherever space is available
- After 30 seconds of purchasing the mines and they still haven't been placed, the mines will be confiscated and the player will be refunded.
- Unique weapon hotkey
- Can only hold 3 at once
Technicians and Hotwires will still have proximity mines for free use. However, like AT mines, only 2 will be allowed to be placed per player. Fortunately, they will no longer be fully responsible for base mining, and the loss of HON/Bar will be less severe this way.
Properties of proximity mines:
-
Takes damage from weapons
- Will explode if destroyed like AT mines
- Only 2 mines per hottie/tech
- Same damage/disarm/repair logic
- Not part of team limit
- Red ring to indicate Nod mines, current one as GDI mines
Around every typical mining area on buildings, the floor should be textured with some red outlined box with text saying something like 'Mining Area', with three circles, Xs, etc to indicate to the player where mines should go. Ramps are self explanatory.
Team mine limit will be dynamic, depending upon how many buildings remain, and what buildings they are. All mines inside a destroyed building will be automatically disarmed.
--
Benefits:
- Exactly the same way to let players know if an infiltration is going on, by seeing the team mine count drop and the feeling that something is amiss. Given how new players have a better idea of where team mines go, they will better understand what a non-maxed mine count would mean.
- New players will have all the freedom to use their own proximity mines however they please with no detriment to the team
- Overmining is no longer possible
- Current mining dynamics unchanged
- Infiltration probabilities unchanged
- Players who access the building mines have an indication of where to put them
- Deters early infiltrators from ending games quickly
- 'Anti-Tank mines should go where tanks go. Proximity mines should go where infantry go. Building mines should go in buildings.'
--
Repurcussions:
- Players will have to spend time look at the other cabinets for mines if another player bought mines but used them on another door/ramp
- HON will be difficult to indicate how to mine, may look like a bunch of scribbles on the second floor
- Unable to place mines directly outside of doors to prevent shooting inside
- One person responsible for mining may not be able to afford to mine all the buildings, could happen before donation time starts
- Unable to stack additional mines in a building due to dynamic mine limit
--
I strongly encourage all to share disagreements or concerns. Only that way we can know and address any potential flaw we might overlook otherwise, and what we truly want to see as the defense system in RenX. And only this way, we can reach a consensus that we are all content with, one that regular players and new players alike can both embrace.
-
5
-
2
-
14 hours ago, Redarmy said:
Keep refs brutal to lose. Losing unit buildings shouldn't be the only back breaking stuff.
Back and forth I hear two sides, one that wants building losses to be as painful as possible (old ren) and one that wants them to be more forgiving, both reasons I believe is for comeback oppurtunities, available options, etc. Depending on your position in the game, if you are dominating the field and pounding buildings, and you lose a building to infiltration for example, obviously this opens up a chance for the other team to decicively retake the field by taking advantage of what you lost. While on the other side, if you lose a building while locked in your own base, the team won't be cut away from so many resources that they can use for a future attack or to bolster defenses, and in the end minimizes the snowball.
I personally think losing the ref right now doesn't quite fit into this scenario of "adpating to what you lost" as much as the production structions. Losing strip/WF means a team can focus on infantry plays mixed in with APC support for example, while losing HON/Bar means a team might focus on defending the base with tanks while sneaking in an unexpecting rocket rush. If you lose the ref, there is no significant way to get back a reliable source of income besides the silo (and as I mentioned, repairing requires your base to be sieged, and you will die a lot as you are a high priority target in the field).
Therefore, the ref should be more lenient to teams that lose the building, as it will cut away too many oppurtunities if teams simply don't have credits to use. Harvester dumps are still important to overall credit gain, and losing it will build up a lot of lost credits over time.
-
1
-
-
Part 1 of 4 of post-pug discussions
--
The Existing Problems:
The team that wins the initial harv fight, will more than likely win the game in a snowball. The harv dump will give that team (300 * # of players) more total credits to utilize and hold the field for the next following harvester dumps. Because of how important it is, this limits the amount of risky early game plays, as losing the first harvester while the other team gets theirs is a death sentence mid-game.
GDI and Nod balance is tied in quite heavily to the economy. Nod for example is much stronger when player economy averages lower than 1k, yet GDI is much stronger when it averages above 1k. In short, LCGs outshine both patch and gunner on the field, and Nod can afford Techs at the same time with mass light tanks and artys, which GDI has little answer to. Later, Sydneys and snipers combined with meds and mammys along with a deathball of hotwires is where Nod struggles to fight head on with. In short, one faction is not overpowered over the other, but rather one performs much better with a higher surplus of credits. Unfortunately getting to that surplus is rather time consuming and often difficult to attain.
Credits are heavily tied in to the fun factor of RenX. If you can't afford anything, I can't blame people for deciding to simply not play. There's no significant objective to do with free infantry mid-late-game besides collecting crates (if you can even get to them) or repairing buildings and tanks as engineers (which becomes worthless later versus ranked up enemies). Games without your refinery often lead to some of the most dreadful experiences, mainly because the lack of credits leading to the lack of meaningful things to do.
--
What to change:
Decrease the harvester payload to 150, increase the passive tickrate to 3. Dead ref tick rate to 2.
--
Benefits:
- This will slow down any snowball that occurs after losing the initial harvester, and makes the silo a much stronger alternative to protecting and attacking harvesters.
- GDI can get their meds and repairs out faster, while Nod would still push out their typical early game composition, decreasing the dominance of Nod early on, and perhaps re-evaluate what is considered 'Nod' maps
- In maps with one vehicle entrance and long distance harvesting, teams that are locked in their base won't have their economy bottle-necked as hard
- More interesting things can be used with the harvester without losing too many credits, such as bringing it to the front line for a base push.
- Teams that get their refinery destroyed early in the game would have a much better chance bouncing back with a tick rate close to the default one.
--
Repercussions:
- Might be too high of a credit income overall, can lead to 1k infantry spam
- Destroying the refinery will much be harder to take advantage of if on the defensive end
-
Teams might consider keeping the refinery alive
just to be able to farm harvesters, as the dead ref tick rate is much higher and may have little change to the way the other team plays
--
Please share any thoughts you may have regarding any further benefits/repercussions, or your opinion in general
-
3
-
1
-
Not a fan of it, but I appreciate the willingness in trying new things
-
-
@DarkSn4ke What will be the starting credits/donation timer?
-
Team exdee -
1. KryptheBear
2. Lavadragon
3. I am an Owl
4. dr.schrott
5. boxes (Captain)
6. bento
7. jpjtyld
8. Water
9. Minji
10. Canucck
~
Subs:
1. Billybez
2. anjew
3. Crowsy
-
3 minutes ago, Ryz said:
Not sure if this was in other versions also:
Tonight we played on CT and a map vote got overlooked by most of our team. We (GDI) had 10k of score, Nod had 1K of score. The vote end showed Nod won... Clearly a bug, not sure if related to this patch or that it was here before...
It counts as a draw for everyone regardless of the score. Was always like that
-
Updated main post
-
Post any related feedback/thoughts/suggestions/bugs you have for 5.3 here. Devs may not always reply, but everything will be read and noted. Green = Fixed or added
Bugs
+ The in-game downloader has somehow acquired a ticking noise
+ Endgame scoreboard no longer plays tick sounds for the last remaining seconds
+ Bolt action weapons are not affected by Offensive commander buffs
+ Heroic Apache rockets may randomly disappear visually
+ Loading screens may not match with their associated map (64bit)
+ Interact key doesn't update on HUD menus if players change the bind (default "e")
+ HON MCT mines still vanishing
Maps+ Whiteout's issues weren't fixed entirely
Suggestions
Maps
Fixed in current version
+ Shotgun sounds and animations are not synced
+ Teams without commanders should have a constant notification on their HUD telling all players in that team. Only goes away until a commander is elected [Mutatator. Possibly will be added to the base game]
+ Connection to steam account not working (to fix this, Go to UDKEngine.ini in the UDKGame->Config, search for the line bEnableSteam and set to true)
+ The MiG and A10's flyover sounds were cooked out
+ The cruise missile sound tends to linger around after it explodes
+ EVA occasionally says 'GDI Harvester Destroyed' when the Nod harvester dies
+ Offensive buff doesn't go in effect if you are suppressing fire with an automatic weapon (let go of M1 and shoot again to make the buff work)
+ Cruise missile detonation could use larger explosion sprite so its less 'wtf' when you randomly die by it
+ Lower time of Status effect modifier crates or lower effect amount
+ Alt+C should bring up the commander menu as well
+ Tomb completely broken, wrong package version
+ Airstrip lights on Walls have no collision
+ Sunrise has some landscape clipping in the floor of the PP
+ Field endgame cam clips through rocks
+ Field floating ramp behind bar
+ Lakeside's cliffs are a bit more murderous to aircraft than intended
+ The Cruise missile can get stuck between cracks on high rock arches, e.g on Eyes/Tunnels
+ Credit ticker goes erratic when the enemy harvester is dumping (only visually, actual credits aren't affected)
+ Player credits show as 0 when showing team info
+ "-- is the new team commander" instead of showing the actual name of the player
+ Vehicles can move when EMP'd, but still take reduced repair rate. You also still get the VP for disabling a vehicle
+ If Enemy commander swaps teams with the other team having an existing commander, that team will have 2 commanders
+ Tac-rifle ammo count does not update
+ Kick menu bugged+ Static Commanders not working for one team+ Cruise Missile kills through buildings+ Outposts - Repair hitboxes inconsistent at certain locations, water flickers on low settings
+ CnC-Eyes - Infantry coverings do not collide with infantry but with vehicles, major issue with bots
+ Outposts water should be more visible, add advanced base defenses and air to help deal with stanks a little better as well as traversing the map, change sound of easter egg to play in proximity rather than to everybody-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Eagle XI said:
The thing is if an team is losing buildings they have not been doing well. So its unlikely they magically start to play better accumulating all that VP once their base starts to blow up.
There’s a difference between a team earning a comeback opportunity vs given a comeback opportunity. One is frustrating for the other team, and ends up prolonging a game that’s going to end the same way thirty minutes ago while the other might give a different and derserving outcome.
Getting structure functionality back needs to be tied to something gameplay related, something that can prove that a team has good chemistry and can pull things off against a full base team while being handicapped (aka not donating credits or trading structure health)
-
3 hours ago, Eagle XI said:
That would definitely help.
Artillery would become truely long range at heroic.
The range increase would be most useful in the flametank.
only the light, med, and mammoth are affected by the new modifier
Pick Up Games (PUGs)
in Renegade X
Posted
PUG will still happen if this gets resolved at a reasonable time. Otherwise we might reschedule